Abstract:
Nativization of English has many facets in it. Among the aspects of the Sri Lankanness in
English such as morphological, syntactic and semantics discourses, the phonological aspect is the
most common and widely discussed aspect. Alongside the recognition of a Sri Lankan variety of
English in pronunciation, accent, structure and meaning, nativization of English as regards its
teaching invites in depth discussions in two other domains: materials and methodology. Although
these two issues are interwoven, the present discussion is on materials. How do we nativize
materials for teaching English?
The interviews I held (in 2007) with 22 teachers of English in the three universities (Colombo,
Jaffna and Sabaragamuwa) for my research showed that they were not satisfied with the
materials. One common comment was that the materials in use were not suitable for the Sri
Lankan context. The responses of 240 students on the same revealed that they found the
materials as “student unfriendly”.
It is important to have content that is culturally appropriate. It would help students relate to
English language by creating a low anxiety level that enhances language acquisition process.
Accomplising the task of cultural resonance could be done through nativization of materials.
Possible nativizations of materials include Thematic Adaptations, i.e., using themes that are
culturally, socially and emotionally close to students; Functional Adaptations, i.e., using
incidents from experiences akin to students’ lives, etc.; Character Adaptations, i.e., using names
from local contexts; Phonological comparisons, i.e., comparisons and reinterpretation of English
phonology in terms of the mother tongue; Use of languages as complementary and not as discrete
entities, for example, using proverbs in the mother tongue equivalent to concepts in English.
The difference between localization and nativization of materials to my perception is that
nativization is part of the process of localization: a process within a process. Where localization
addresses a larger scope that embraces learners’ social, psychological, physical and educational
needs, nativization supports to achieve them with a ‘cultural touch’.
Localization of materials may be carried out to address a particular teaching style or learning
style of students, to adapt for a different grade level, to adapt for a different discipline, to adjust
for a different learning environment, to suit the ideology of a particular programme, to address
diverse needs, to address a cultural preference, to address either a school or a district’s
standardized curriculum.
Therefore, nativization of lesson material as shown above is part of localization. Nativization has
more to do with culture and other features of a language that emerge as a result of the exposure
to a particular contextual reality whereas localization of materials addresses the issues of learner
needs and the specific needs of a particular programme.
To conclude, nativization of English can be divided into two main areas: automatic and
deliberate; Automatic nativization is mainly vis-à-vis pronunciation, accent and syntax and
26
happens as a result of mother tongue influence; deliberate nativization is mainly for teaching
English in the domains of material production and teaching methodology. But in certain cases it
could be found in pronunciation and accent also. Deliberate nativization of teaching materials
and methods are best suited to reach out to students who have distanced themselves from
learning English and who have been distanced from English despite their desire to learn it.
However, whether it is deliberate or automatic, the discussions on nativization are the result of
the search for a national identity in using English. Such an identity created via teaching English
by means of nativized materials and methods would be consolidated and sustained by many
generations to come